I share your frustration but we can't discount his contribution to our understanding of Buddha's teaching.
I can't think of my learning without Ven Bodhi's guidance.
All the teacher I know including Ven. Thanissaro Ajhan Chah etc they all have some points we can not reconcile with.
I think we have to find the Buddha within ourselves not from outside.

JackOfHearts wrote:Although Bhikkhu Bodhi lost all credibility as a Dhamma teacher for me with his advocacy for a doctrine of Just War, here, though he couches it as "defending women's reproductive rights," he's advocating for women's right to have an abortion. No matter how much I'd like to sugarcoat it, it's hard to avoid the conclusion that once again Bhikkhu Bodhi is encouraging people to violate the first precept. I take it as further evidence of a fundamental failure by Bhikkhu Bodhi to understand the Dhamma at even a basic level despite his deep familiarity with the suttas. Shocking, I know. But his statements are absolutely irreconcilable with the Dhamma unless you are willing to throw out the teachings of all the Ajahns and the Pali Canon itself. Myself, the only way to reconcile the irreconcilable is to reluctantly admit that despite his admirable efforts in translating the Canon, I cannot hold him up as any sort of Dhamma teacher.

Which Ajahns are explicitly against all abortion, besides Ven. Thanissaro? And what passages in the Canon, besides the one I know of about the gandhabba descending into the womb, detail what happens during conception and pregnancy?

Good point, retro. But, what defines "convincing a woman to have an abortion"? I mean, how explicit or implicit does it have to be to qualify for that? Surely, this is a statement open to interpretation. What do the commentaries have to say? Some would construe Ven. Bodhi's statements as doing this, others would not. So who is to say whether what he has said is a parajika offense? Also, I'd like to see the Pali on this dissected by one of our resident grammarians .

Mkoll wrote:Good point, retro. But, what defines "convincing a woman to have an abortion"? I mean, how explicit or implicit does it have to be to qualify for that?

If you want to investigate further, I would recommend downloading Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "Buddhist Monastic Code" parts 1 & 2 and doing a word-search on the term "abortion". There's extra clarification and commentarial source material in there.

Metta,
Paul.

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)

More ongoing discussions about Ven. Bodhi's article including the venerable's own comments and clarification is available here. If you have comment or need any clarification, feel free to post it there so the venerable can address it directly.

santa100 wrote:More ongoing discussions about Ven. Bodhi's article including the venerable's own comments and clarification is available here. If you have comment or need any clarification, feel free to post it there so the venerable can address it directly.

The comments to Bhikkhu Bodhi's article are well worth reading. The commentator Truth provides a well informed and effective rebuttal to the Venerable One's essay.

Mkoll wrote:Good point, retro. But, what defines "convincing a woman to have an abortion"? I mean, how explicit or implicit does it have to be to qualify for that?

If you want to investigate further, I would recommend downloading Thanissaro Bhikkhu's "Buddhist Monastic Code" parts 1 & 2 and doing a word-search on the term "abortion". There's extra clarification and commentarial source material in there.

Metta,
Paul.

Read it, don't see any clarification for my question beyond the obvious: "arranging for the operation, supplying the medicines, or advising a woman to get an abortion and she follows through—incurs a parajika." My question was whether Ven. Bodhi is doing that; I guess I should have made that even more explicit. And judging from his comments on the post santa linked, IMO he is not.

Here is Bhikkhu Bodhi's position on abortion. This also happens to mirror my view.

1) Although as a Buddhist I am personally opposed to abortion and would advise a woman who sought my counsel against obtaining one, I believe that the question of whether abortion should be legal is a political matter that should be left to the organs of government to determine. Those who oppose abortion on religious grounds should not be entitled to use government policy to impose the entailments of their beliefs on others.

Earlier it was argued that Bhikkhu Bodhi wasn't advocating women's right to an abortion because he said, "He [Trump] threatened to deny women their reproductive rights." I have not heard Trump or right wingers attack pap smears or breast exams, so please let's not kid ourselves.

If Bhikkhu Bodhi believes that the question of whether abortion should be legal is a political matter that should be left to the organs of government to determine, why then does he insert himself into this debate, especially when it is clearly counter to the basic teachings of the religion he represents?

What if the opposition to abortion were not on religious grounds per se, but based simply on the right to not be murdered by another? Can laws to achieve the goals of non-murder be legitimately enacted without recourse to religion?

Metta,
Paul.

"The uprooting of identity is seen by the noble ones as pleasurable; but this contradicts what the whole world sees." (Snp 3.12)

"It is natural that one who knows and sees things as they really are is disenchanted and dispassionate." (AN 10.2)

“Truth does not change according to our ability to stomach it.” (Flannery O'Connor)